Author
Topic: Fresh Thoughts on the WR (Read 4653 times)

Fr. John G. Winfrey has resurrected his blog, so to speak, in gearing up for the upcoming Antiochian Archdiocese convention and the topic he's diving into is on the nature and relevance of our Western Patrimony and what it means for the Western Rite within Orthodoxy, particularly for the AWRV. Thought some of you might find it interesting as he has a lot of wonderful things to say, touching on Antioch's unique approach to the Western tradition as that of basing it upon the living liturgical life of the West.

A patrimony, is that which has been handed down from our fathers (and mothers) to us. We cannot skip generations and still call it our patrimony for to do so is to break with a living stream of reception and incorporation. This is a critical point that must be remembered when “correcting” things. To go one centimeter too far is to excise something precious, something received from our fathers. I would never dream of taking away what my own father gave me personally. And how could I? To do so is to become entirely un-traditional, entirely novel and fantastic (as in living in a fantasy world that never really was)...We have given the first principle of our Patrimony as including the entire European heritage rather than any particular group of the West.

A Patrimony in its essence is something received. We might even suggest that it is little else but the cultural aspect of Tradition. Culture here is not to be confused with meaning only language and such, but includes folkways and customs as well—at least anthropologically. The same would imply that a Patrimony includes devotions, particular rituals, of course a Rite in this case, music, and so on. But the essential ingredient is that it must be something that has been received and not made-up or recreated. A Patrimony cannot be phantastical. It is a living, organic whole which it not accessible to the (often pseudo-) scholar’s historical conclusions. While a certain historical approach may have an apologetic appeal—as well as a romantic appeal, it is not technically a Patrimony for it is a recreation often relying on assumptions to form the premises by which this work is done.

So how do we make a decision about things that developed after 1054? We are told in the WR Edict that those things which logically develop from the use of the West in 1054 are to be retained. This guideline is set for fights. One says it is logical and another says it isn’t. The answer must be more generous than not because I sense more than a little iconoclasm is involved here. There is a very real desire to “break” the West and reshape it to one’s one vision. But I, for one, am reminded of the parable of the wheat and the tares. We must be very careful because those who wish to break up the received Western practices are usually also heavily enculturated with the spirit of the Reformation (from whence many of them came). There is a puritanical bent to purge it all without regard. And, as I have written before, there is still a very keen and hotly felt Romaphobia as well...It seems that in discerning certain items that time is by far the better judge. Most things should be left alone and allow the Church herself to do the pruning and correcting rather than individual clergy with a reformer’s zeal (however Orthodox the zeal is meant to be).

Some believe that the true Western Patrimony died at the time of the schism of East and West. If this is true, then there should not be a Western Rite in Orthodoxy at all because a Patrimony must be something received and living, not an historical reenactment however fun that may be. But don’t we as Orthodox also have the belief that we don’t know where the Holy Spirit is not? that God has not left the children of his faithful ones without him entirely (and that we can’t even say how much is left or not)?

The children of the Reformation and of the Catholic Church are not personally responsible for the schism. Most of the West didn’t cause it, they lived in their villages and worked there farms continuing to do what their parents had done before them. They very often continued to worship in the same village churches for centuries. There was never a willful nor conscious desire for schism, it was something that occurred outside the sphere of their own lives. Surely God wouldn’t leave these little ones. Were there then some missteps? Perhaps. But it would be impossible to discern these things until they are allowed to live within the context of the Tradition and given time to either pass away, alter, or remain. This takes decades or longer, and can never the simple fiat of one person however so gloriously anointed in ordination and chrism. God’s time is not our time.

Patrimony then, and as I said this is the most controversial of the fundamental points, is necessarily received from our immediate predecessors and not remotely. This means that Altar Missals of the 1950s are the legitimate continuation of the Patrimony in as much as this is when the WRV was established in this country—and with the specific directions to use the 1958 English Knott Missal as the English equivalent to the Latin. But if we don’t accept this (in both text and rubrics) then we are creating our own fantasy which is not the reception and continuance of a Patrimony. And in that case, better there be no WR in Orthodoxy at all.

If this is right, about the living tradition of the west, why do we need the WR in Orthodoxy? People who want it could join their local FSSP church. After all, the FSSP (and the SSPX if one doesn’t mind their slightly odd status) are using something they’ve had easily within living memory. I can’t help thinking that if someone wants the “living tradition of the west” they would be better going to where it never died.

The easy answer is theology. The ecclesiastical bodies that have preserved the Western patrimony no longer hold the Apostolic faith and are, by definition, not the Apostolic Church.

It's more than merely rite, we want to be a part of the Church. And the Church is a singular body, there is no division within it. Orthodoxy is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, why would we want anything less than that?

If this is right, about the living tradition of the west, why do we need the WR in Orthodoxy? People who want it could join their local FSSP church. After all, the FSSP (and the SSPX if one doesn’t mind their slightly odd status) are using something they’ve had easily within living memory. I can’t help thinking that if someone wants the “living tradition of the west” they would be better going to where it never died.

Sr Margaret

The Romans and those that have branched off from them are not the living tradition of anything. They are dead. The moment they entered into schism and heresy form the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, they died and have ceased to carry on tradition. The reason why people want to be part of a WR Orthodoxy, is because they get more out of a more western form of Orthodoxy than they do out of the eastern form of it. However, I think that nearly all WR Orthodox would gladly go to an ER Orthodox parish if they had to choose between it and an FSSP parish, because Orthodoxy is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. FSSP is heresy and schism.

The easy answer is theology. The ecclesiastical bodies that have preserved the Western patrimony no longer hold the Apostolic faith and are, by definition, not the Apostolic Church.

It's more than merely rite, we want to be a part of the Church. And the Church is a singular body, there is no division within it. Orthodoxy is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, why would we want anything less than that?

For me, this is actually what relieves most of my doubt about the WR. If they wanted to take the easy route and just enjoy a western-style liturgy, probably on a far grander scale than most any WRO parish could offer, they could become Roman Catholic. But they join the Orthodox Church because they believe it is the Church.

If this is right, about the living tradition of the west, why do we need the WR in Orthodoxy? People who want it could join their local FSSP church. After all, the FSSP (and the SSPX if one doesn’t mind their slightly odd status) are using something they’ve had easily within living memory. I can’t help thinking that if someone wants the “living tradition of the west” they would be better going to where it never died.

Sr Margaret

The Romans and those that have branched off from them are not the living tradition of anything. They are dead. The moment they entered into schism and heresy form the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, they died and have ceased to carry on tradition. The reason why people want to be part of a WR Orthodoxy, is because they get more out of a more western form of Orthodoxy than they do out of the eastern form of it. However, I think that nearly all WR Orthodox would gladly go to an ER Orthodox parish if they had to choose between it and an FSSP parish, because Orthodoxy is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. FSSP is heresy and schism.

I agree. However I read the original article to mean that the RCs have living tradition. God apparently did not abandon his little ones in the west, after all, the schism wasn't their fault, etc, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood.

If this is right, about the living tradition of the west, why do we need the WR in Orthodoxy? People who want it could join their local FSSP church. After all, the FSSP (and the SSPX if one doesn’t mind their slightly odd status) are using something they’ve had easily within living memory. I can’t help thinking that if someone wants the “living tradition of the west” they would be better going to where it never died.

Sr Margaret

The Romans and those that have branched off from them are not the living tradition of anything. They are dead. The moment they entered into schism and heresy form the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, they died and have ceased to carry on tradition. The reason why people want to be part of a WR Orthodoxy, is because they get more out of a more western form of Orthodoxy than they do out of the eastern form of it. However, I think that nearly all WR Orthodox would gladly go to an ER Orthodox parish if they had to choose between it and an FSSP parish, because Orthodoxy is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. FSSP is heresy and schism.

I agree. However I read the original article to mean that the RCs have living tradition. God apparently did not abandon his little ones in the west, after all, the schism wasn't their fault, etc, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood.

The Roman Catholics and other heterodox may have a living tradition but it is outside the Church. I am hopeful God judges the innocent victims of the great schism with mercy and His boundless love.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

If this is right, about the living tradition of the west, why do we need the WR in Orthodoxy? People who want it could join their local FSSP church. After all, the FSSP (and the SSPX if one doesn’t mind their slightly odd status) are using something they’ve had easily within living memory. I can’t help thinking that if someone wants the “living tradition of the west” they would be better going to where it never died.

Sr Margaret

The Romans and those that have branched off from them are not the living tradition of anything. They are dead. The moment they entered into schism and heresy form the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, they died and have ceased to carry on tradition. The reason why people want to be part of a WR Orthodoxy, is because they get more out of a more western form of Orthodoxy than they do out of the eastern form of it. However, I think that nearly all WR Orthodox would gladly go to an ER Orthodox parish if they had to choose between it and an FSSP parish, because Orthodoxy is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. FSSP is heresy and schism.

I agree. However I read the original article to mean that the RCs have living tradition. God apparently did not abandon his little ones in the west, after all, the schism wasn't their fault, etc, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood.

The Roman Catholics and other heterodox may have a living tradition but it is outside the Church. I am hopeful God judges the innocent victims of the great schism with mercy and His boundless love.

Not only will God judge them with compassion but he is already actively leading them into Salvation. See the words of the Holy Metropolitan Philaret First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

I believe Fr. Winfrey's main point is that we ought to be very cautious in saying where the Spirit of God does or does not blow, and that we should treat our inheritance with the utmost respect and humility. Some want to take a hatchet job to our heritage because they have an axe to grind and others want to just cut it in half in hopes of getting to some "pre-Schism" tradition that no longer exists. Things grow and change, you can't just set the clock back 900 years. I think his thoughts are very wise and prudent, and more in keeping with true Orthodox ecclesiology, leaving it to the Spirit of God and the praying Church to make any organic adjustments that need to be made to our Western heritage, rather than rogue priests or scholars taking the reins.

I believe Fr. Winfrey's main point is that we ought to be very cautious in saying where the Spirit of God does or does not blow, and that we should treat our inheritance with the utmost respect and humility. Some want to take a hatchet job to our heritage because they have an axe to grind and others want to just cut it in half in hopes of getting to some "pre-Schism" tradition that no longer exists. Things grow and change, you can't just set the clock back 900 years. I think his thoughts are very wise and prudent, and more in keeping with true Orthodox ecclesiology, leaving it to the Spirit of God and the praying Church to make any organic adjustments that need to be made to our Western heritage, rather than rogue priests or scholars taking the reins.

This sounds pretty extreme in itself. I hardly think that leaving behind that which came into vogue after the schism chops the Western heritage in half or that the work that has been done to bring the past to light is done by "rogues." For shame.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I believe Fr. Winfrey's main point is that we ought to be very cautious in saying where the Spirit of God does or does not blow, and that we should treat our inheritance with the utmost respect and humility. Some want to take a hatchet job to our heritage because they have an axe to grind and others want to just cut it in half in hopes of getting to some "pre-Schism" tradition that no longer exists. Things grow and change, you can't just set the clock back 900 years. I think his thoughts are very wise and prudent, and more in keeping with true Orthodox ecclesiology, leaving it to the Spirit of God and the praying Church to make any organic adjustments that need to be made to our Western heritage, rather than rogue priests or scholars taking the reins.

This sounds pretty extreme in itself. I hardly think that leaving behind that which came into vogue after the schism chops the Western heritage in half or that the work that has been done to bring the past to light is done by "rogues." For shame.

I agree. I don't think Sleeper meant it in the way that Orthodox of the WR should adopt such things as the scapular or any of the "medals" or accepting other such things, but let's give him a chance to respond.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

I believe Fr. Winfrey's main point is that we ought to be very cautious in saying where the Spirit of God does or does not blow, and that we should treat our inheritance with the utmost respect and humility. Some want to take a hatchet job to our heritage because they have an axe to grind and others want to just cut it in half in hopes of getting to some "pre-Schism" tradition that no longer exists. Things grow and change, you can't just set the clock back 900 years. I think his thoughts are very wise and prudent, and more in keeping with true Orthodox ecclesiology, leaving it to the Spirit of God and the praying Church to make any organic adjustments that need to be made to our Western heritage, rather than rogue priests or scholars taking the reins.

To draw a line in the sand between 1054 and post 1054 is difficult especially in liturgics. Some WR priests think that everything 'Latin' is Papist. I know one WR priest who says a Canterbury cap is "in" but a biretta is "out", and despite what Bishop Jerome has said about baroque vestments being fine in ROCOR WR thinks that "Sarum" vestments are the only appropriate ones.

I would prefer to see WR nuns in Western habits like the Benedictine nuns in the ROCOR WR convent in Canada, rather than wearing Eastern or semi-Eastern habits. Similarly do we know what a pre-Schism Western cassock looked like? Logically then a Roman or Anglican cassock is preferrable to an Eastern podraznik worn with a belt, Anglican style.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

I believe Fr. Winfrey's main point is that we ought to be very cautious in saying where the Spirit of God does or does not blow, and that we should treat our inheritance with the utmost respect and humility. Some want to take a hatchet job to our heritage because they have an axe to grind and others want to just cut it in half in hopes of getting to some "pre-Schism" tradition that no longer exists. Things grow and change, you can't just set the clock back 900 years. I think his thoughts are very wise and prudent, and more in keeping with true Orthodox ecclesiology, leaving it to the Spirit of God and the praying Church to make any organic adjustments that need to be made to our Western heritage, rather than rogue priests or scholars taking the reins.

To draw a line in the sand between 1054 and post 1054 is difficult especially in liturgics. Some WR priests think that everything 'Latin' is Papist. I know one WR priest who says a Canterbury cap is "in" but a biretta is "out", and despite what Bishop Jerome has said about baroque vestments being fine in ROCOR WR thinks that "Sarum" vestments are the only appropriate ones.

I would prefer to see WR nuns in Western habits like the Benedictine nuns in the ROCOR WR convent in Canada, rather than wearing Eastern or semi-Eastern habits. Similarly do we know what a pre-Schism Western cassock looked like? Logically then a Roman or Anglican cassock is preferrable to an Eastern podraznik worn with a belt, Anglican style.

I actually agree here. What I don't really agree with is leaving the pre-schism heritage behind for the post-schism "living tradition." The pre-schism prayers are not "dead." There are many prayers, liturgies, and usages which are still extant and usable with or without editing. I also see a tendency amongst some to want to hold on to the 12th century which just seems odd to me, given the history. We should much more thoroughly investigate our undoubtedly Orthodox Western patrimony extant before the schism first before we sign off on using post-schism Western "things."

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I believe Fr. Winfrey's main point is that we ought to be very cautious in saying where the Spirit of God does or does not blow, and that we should treat our inheritance with the utmost respect and humility. Some want to take a hatchet job to our heritage because they have an axe to grind and others want to just cut it in half in hopes of getting to some "pre-Schism" tradition that no longer exists. Things grow and change, you can't just set the clock back 900 years. I think his thoughts are very wise and prudent, and more in keeping with true Orthodox ecclesiology, leaving it to the Spirit of God and the praying Church to make any organic adjustments that need to be made to our Western heritage, rather than rogue priests or scholars taking the reins.

To draw a line in the sand between 1054 and post 1054 is difficult especially in liturgics. Some WR priests think that everything 'Latin' is Papist. I know one WR priest who says a Canterbury cap is "in" but a biretta is "out", and despite what Bishop Jerome has said about baroque vestments being fine in ROCOR WR thinks that "Sarum" vestments are the only appropriate ones.

I would prefer to see WR nuns in Western habits like the Benedictine nuns in the ROCOR WR convent in Canada, rather than wearing Eastern or semi-Eastern habits. Similarly do we know what a pre-Schism Western cassock looked like? Logically then a Roman or Anglican cassock is preferrable to an Eastern podraznik worn with a belt, Anglican style.

I actually agree here. What I don't really agree with is leaving the pre-schism heritage behind for the post-schism "living tradition." The pre-schism prayers are not "dead." There are many prayers, liturgies, and usages which are still extant and usable with or without editing. I also see a tendency amongst some to want to hold on to the 12th century which just seems odd to me, given the history. We should much more thoroughly investigate our undoubtedly Orthodox Western patrimony extant before the schism first before we sign off on using post-schism Western "things."

I actually agree here 100%. Investigation of the Western Orthodox patrimony needs to be academic, historic and willing to challenge assumptions. Many in the WR have come from Anglo-Catholic or Protestant confessions, and perhaps carry the scars and baggage of that hence the anti-Latinism of the Sarum is all people. Sensible investigation is required. Secondly the Russian Orthodox Church - did NOT authorise an Anglican derived mass in the 19th century. The most that was done was to look at it and no authorisation was done until ROCOR did so in the mid 1990s. The fiction of this is I suspect done to show the longevity of the WR but it is simply wrong.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

I think it will end up being a mix of both approaches, and in fact, that has already proven to be the case, at least within the AWRV.

Nobody is saying everything after the Schism is all fine and dandy, and nobody is opposed to pre-Schism elements either. In fact, the dichotomy is a false one. Life in the West, as Fr. Winfrey pointed out, carried on like normal for quite a while amongst the farmers and villagers offering their worship to God. In any case, if you read the postings from Fr. Winfrey you will see that he emphasizes the fact that all of the Western heritage belongs to us, not just parts of it. And that heritage didn't "die" when the Schism happened. It continued to be passed down and preserved by subsequent generations.

The crux of this issue is whether or not any sort of authentic, ongoing Western Rite should be based upon "resurrected" elements, whether they be entire liturgies, vestment styles, music, etc., or if it should be based upon that which has been handed down to us. You'll find proponents in both camps, and that's what Fr. Winfrey is addressing. Some insist that only that which is pre-Schism is acceptable, while others think the WR should be based upon the living patrimony of the West.

All I was saying was that I see great wisdom and prudence in Fr. Winfrey's approach, that of taking what has been handed down to us, keeping as much as absolutely possible in a spirit of humility and respect, and letting baptized, chrismated Orthodox Christians set out to organically develop and adjust the heritage as the Church, as they pray and worship with it. It's a matter of perspective and a matter of purpose.

Fr. John Winfrey is a very good writer, and his three articles (redacted above, into one) forcefully express a philosophy which I believe he sincerely holds. That said, I find the philosophy to be untenable in its conception and highly problematical for implementation.

I will begin by "crunching" some issues and situations, and applying his philosophic principle to them (as I understand it), hoping to demonstrate that unfortunate things would result. First, he is saying, in essence, that nothing which at some point fell out of practice in the West, can be resurrected. That would mean that Gregorian chant, which in its full scope vanished from usage historically, and was resurrected by the Roman church due to scholarly labour, is impermissible in divine worship. How sad!

If we were to implement Fr. John's philosophy, we should be forced to conclude that no BCP rite worship can be permitted in Orthodoxy. I privately opine that the BCP rite, and indeed any other Protestant rite, is to be discouraged in Orthodoxy. In fact, my opinions about the BCP rite are exactly the same as the opinions of the Russian committee which in 1904 published their "findings" on the rite. Exactly the same. Yet I would never try to get involved in "shutting down" someone's BCP rite once it had been previously approved. It's not in me. I have a Gamaliellian approach: If it is of God, it will last; if not, not. Thus I can be at peace, and not feel some Purge has to be launched. It's all for bishops to decide and my part is to obey.

If we were to implement Fr. John's philosophy, we would be forced to exclude the Gallican rite from the Church, for it is a resurrection of the sort decried. Yet a great Saint of modern times, St. John Maximovitch, blessed its use and, going further, celebrated in that rite. Now, this isn't living Orthodoxy? A Liturgy celebrated by a great Saint, is "dead"? St. John's liturgies were "iconoclastic" because they didn't incorporate the construct of "The Patrimony?" Surely not.

Now I will delve into why I find Fr. John's construct ("The Patrimony") to be foundationally faulty as a philosophy, however well-meaning (and I do not attribute to my brother priest any nefarious motives or lack of piety; let that be clear). It attributes to an extra-Ecclesiastical construct an authority which is more or less absolute. "The Patrimony" is seen as a litmus test for the right life of the Western Rite in the Church, though springing largely from heresy and from outside the Church. Is this not problematical? It reminds me of those who refer to "living" and "dead" rites. There is no such thing; in the Church there is life, period. The life of the Church by definition reposes in the Church, as she is manifested on earth. Thus if a rite is celebrated within the Church, it is to that extent, ipso facto, living. Not only that, but the life of the Church consists of all those faithful who came before us. They too get a vote; they are not among the dead, but among the living!

G.K. Chesterton wrote: "Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise [i.e., the power to vote]. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father." I would extend what Chesterton said, as follows, "Orthodoxy asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our great-great-great, etc., grandfather, as long as he held the same priceless Orthodox faith which we hold."

The life of the Church is not constrained to the rites, practices, or customs of those whose deviant beliefs placed them outside her pale long ago, whether knowingly or unknowingly, fairly or unfairly. The "Patrimony" philosophy would indicate that the life of Christ, by which all creation is renewed, is something which resides in a rite or usage per se--in an inculturation. It is related to the philosophy called Ritualism.

Is resurrecting tradition a bonum? It can be, for we read in 2nd Paralipomenon that king Ezechias found the people had become accustomed to a debased usage in the keeping of the passover, and many other precepts of God, and consulting the scriptures and traditions, he resurrected a more exact performance, with marvellous spiritual results. His success at resurrecting "dead" observances which were not part of the "Patrimony" of his day, is also described in 4th Kings in the 18th chapter.

It can be a bonum, for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said in Mark 7, "For leaving the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups, and many other things you do like to these." He did not accept all the Patrimony of His day, only the best part thereof. Good ritual may be resurrected, to the spiritual refreshment of many, and bad ritual can be allowed to lapse. Who will referee what is "iconoclasm" and what is renewal and what is preservation? Surely the truth of Orthodoxy, the Orthodox heritage, the suggestions of living Saints of God, and the rulings of canonical Orthodox bishops. I do not think that heretics from the recent or distant past can really provide us that lantern of discernment. The Western rite of today needs to be shaped, honed, guided by some principle higher than that of The Patrimony. But I stand squarely with Fr. John, in dreading the intrusions of those who hold scholarly principles higher than the principles of church piety, or who would sweep away some liturgical custom because it doesn't make sense to them, or who think liturgy should be an archaeological re-enactment (!).

The "Patrimony" philosophy falls apart under the magnifying-glass of Christian history, for she is full of resurrections. A few reforms of Pope Pius V, author of the Tridentine mass, were returns "ad fontes," restorations of old usages, or at least were thought to be so. Some of his reforms constituted a peeling-away of interim liturgical accretions, even ones that had been in place for nearly a thousand years. Anglicanism was perpetrated under the banner of a return "ad fontes." The singing of Gregorian chant was achieved as a resurrection--by and large no historical continuity there. Gothic style vestments were a resurrection. Fr. John Connelly of the AWRV has written that certain Saints originally named in the canon of the Mass in Anglo-Saxon England, and later stricken, may be rightfully restored; that would be a resurrection. Within the St. Tikhon Liturgy, putting the Gloria and other items back in, was a resurrection.

Fr. John seems to limit our access to "The Patrimony" to the form it took up to, say, the 1950s. But this discounts the living presence with us of those saints who lived in past centuries. Bishop Jerome's address at his nomination as bishop in the Russian Church Abroad included these remarks:

"For this reason, there are no “closed” or “destroyed” churches, no “abolished” monasteries, because the Lord God, in whom their departed members abide as part of His Church, is outside of time, and they are eternally with Him. One should therefore not suppose that any part of the Church has ceased to exist. For example, the Armenian Church of St. Gregory the Enlightener will always exist in heaven, no matter what the state of the Armenian Church on earth may be. The earthly Roman Church separated from Orthodoxy; but the heavenly, Orthodox Church of Rome will always exist, and St Gregory the Dialogist and the other Orthodox Western Saints are ever with us. The earthly Armenian Church, and the Roman, fell away from the unity of Orthodoxy, and are deprived of communion with us: but the Armenian and Roman Saints, being in the Kingdom of God in heaven, eternally present that spiritual foundation upon which those Churches can be restored. This truth was seen with exceptional spiritual clarity by St John Maximovitch, who restored Western Orthodoxy: he remains invisibly present with us, and his mission lives. In other words, to be Orthodox means to be in union with the whole Orthodox Church, and to accept all of its heritage."

Bishop Jerome wrote some years ago about this same subject, back when people were mocking the Sarum Use efforts which he had pioneered, as representing "antiquarianism" and "archaeology," in a marvellous webpost, re-presented here: http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Archaeology.html .

Fr. John may not have intended it, but I fear that his construct of "The Patrimony" could be used as a club of enforcement for suppressing the prayers of "those others" in favour of "the prayers I myself said just this morning." And that would be a pity. Any valid Orthodox Liturgy, from the present or the past, possesses life and grace. Reverence is to be found among a wide variety of us iconodules, whether Tridentine-rite, Sarum-rite, Anglican-rite, Gallican-rite, Byzantine-rite, Mozarabic-rite, or Ambrosian-rite.

I tend to write in a pointed way, but let it be clear that I respect Fr. John Winfrey and I am discussing his article's ideas without disrespect or condemnation, and with a healthy sense that I could be quite mistaken in many respects. I am not looking down upon a brother priest who can doubtless run rings around me in prayer, intercession, and righteousness. I hope that I may some day kiss his hand.

Thanks for sharing, Father. I don't think one could understand your thoughts to be, in any way, judgmental or disrespectful.

I'd disagree with the main thrust, though, because I don't actually think Fr. Winfrey is positing what you think he is. As I understand it, he's simply saying that there is something to our shared heritage and that we ought to exercise with caution any impulse to skip many generations in some attempt to arrive at something "more Orthodox" simply because of its date, however well-intentioned such an impulse may be. I know that you fall into the latter camp, based on things of yours that I've read (and the fact that you continue to refer to the Rite of St. Tikhon as a "Protestant" rite, for some reason), and it's just a fundamental point of disagreement, which is fine and I think at this point in the life of the Western Rite, something that is actually needed. And, in fact, it may prove that both "approaches" will find footing in the Church and prove to be wonderful ways of both preserving our varied heritage and becoming an authentic rite for the people.

We are in 100% agreement that nothing of the Church ceases to be life-giving, no matter what era it came from, and I am not in any way opposed to people who want to resurrect many beautiful things that have fallen out of use in the West. I don't think Fr. Winfrey is either, and I didn't come away from his thoughts thinking that he is saying only that which is "living" is valid. But, I disagree that trying to set the clock back is the ideal starting point. Such is life

And yet we "set the clock back" in regard to the Creed, excising the Filioque, without too much trouble. If you have ever taken Holy Communion during the time of a eucharistic service, this comes from a "setting the clock back" from within the Roman Catholic church of a few centuries ago. That practice (lay people communing DURING the Mass) had long ago died out.

Married priests? Deliberately setting the clock back perhaps 1300 years. Yet I read of few complaints...

It seems that when people have set the clock back, or are making good use of settings-back already achieved, they think all is fine and good. But when "some of those darn people way over there" set the clock back, it's thought to border on wrongfulness.

The difference, though, is one of insisting that only that which we have set the clock back upon is valid. It's the mentality that builds upon the false narrative of, as a David Bentley Hart adequately puts it, "the myth...of a sudden definitive catastrophic breach between the churches that immediately created two distinct communions [which] bears little relation to history" (The Myth of Schism) that needs to be opposed, and which so often gets touted in trying to determine what's "really Orthodox."

Those of us that see the wisdom of basing any ongoing Western Rite upon the living tradition of the West are not against "resurrecting" things from our shared past, or diving deep into the treasure troves of our heritage, at all. That would be a ridiculous position to hold. I get the sense that Fr. Winfrey feels the need to articulate this approach (that of Antioch's) in order to combat this idea that something magical happened when Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other, and that 1054 is some sort of cutoff point for anything "valid" for Orthodox Christians to use. It's a fundamental difference of narrative, viewpoint and starting point.

So when we speak of the "living" tradition of the West, you can't assume that what we mean by that is the exclusion of anything else. It's not true.

Camp A: "Only that which is pre-Schism (ideally), or at the least pre-Reformation, is permissible for Orthodox use."

Camp B: "Patrimony is important, for people, for culture, for community, and we should seek to preserve all that we can."

Camp B incorporates all of the elements that make up what Camp A seeks to put into use and preserve, as well as any elements that were developed after the supposed "cut off" dates (so long as they are logically derived and continue to be authentic and life-giving), within its scope.

Camp A, however, excludes anything after their determined "cut off" dates. It doesn't see the Western Tradition as an organic whole, something that never "died" and continued to develop, but rather sees it as a severed branch that must be "resurrected." i.e. setting the clock back.

So who's building on that false narrative? No one I know. Do you know anyone who is? I can't think of a single example. Maybe some Greek old calendarist zealot? It's some un-named bogeyman.

You say it would be ridiculous to be against resurrecting things from our shared past, or diving "deep" (going back centuries?) into the treasure troves of our heritage. Yet that seems to be precisely Fr. John Winfrey's position, when he lays out his philosophical construct of "The Patrimony." He denies that one could skip any generations, in resurrecting anything. He says, "It would not be The Patrimony." But I'll wager that he accepts a married priesthood (skipping 1300 years of Western practice); accepts lay people taking Communion during the time of a Mass or Liturgy (that's skipping many, many generations to resurrect a practice which was "dead" in the West); accepts Gregorian chant (skips many generations); and accepts Gothic style vestments (skips many generations).

Really, it comes down to this: I just love our artificially-restored archaeological practices. They rock. But those other guys over there, with different-coloured hair, I just hate their artificially-restored archaeological practices. They're awful.

I completely reject this caricature of the Western Rite situation. What if we had this:

Camp A: "Focus mainly on what is pre-Schism or at least pre-Reformation, because of Orthodox theology and to help escape the tremendous spiritual harm which was wrought by the Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation, taking the West farther and farther from its own Orthodoxy; but be pastorally sensitive, not rejecting out of hand any local customs. Patrimony is important, but is directly accessible to us from 1054 right to the present. We respect how the West preserved its heritage, and we represent a direct continuity with that; however, we do not feel bound by the constraints of the last thousand years of development which were largely in a context of being divorced from Orthodoxy."

Camp B: "Patrimony is important, for people, for culture, for community, and we should seek to preserve all that we can. That which was done in 1053 cannot be done today, as it is outside the line of development the separated West took historically. We ought not to deviate from that deviation"

I have mentioned that it's not "elements" which are life-giving, it is the CHURCH which is life-giving. It is Christ Who is life-giving.

You wrote: "Camp A, however, excludes anything after their determined "cut off" dates." Does anyone actually claim that? I don't know of a single soul. It's a big, bad, scary bogeyman.

Camp A: "Only that which is pre-Schism (ideally), or at the least pre-Reformation, is permissible for Orthodox use."

Camp B: "Patrimony is important, for people, for culture, for community, and we should seek to preserve all that we can."

Camp B incorporates all of the elements that make up what Camp A seeks to put into use and preserve, as well as any elements that were developed after the supposed "cut off" dates (so long as they are logically derived and continue to be authentic and life-giving), within its scope.

Camp A, however, excludes anything after their determined "cut off" dates. It doesn't see the Western Tradition as an organic whole, something that never "died" and continued to develop, but rather sees it as a severed branch that must be "resurrected." i.e. setting the clock back.

How about Camp C: Use St Tikhon's Rite, use Sarum Rite, use the Rite of St Gregory, use what you want and be done with arguing already! There's plenty of room in Orthodoxy for both stances and WR is really too small to be the focus of such intense debate, especially with those Camp D ("Western Rite isn't real Orthodoxy") vultures circling the skies.

The whole argument reeks from both sides: it's all creating a new liturgy for Western use, whether it's modifying what's already in use by the Anglicans or the Roman Catholics or it's "resurrecting" old liturgies based on a variety of texts from shortly after the schism and trying to sort out what wasn't there before. Both approaches are Orthodox in that they have been approved for use by their respective synods and bishops, there's no point in trying to prove that one philosophy or the other is more Orthodox.

But I'll wager that he accepts a married priesthood (skipping 1300 years of Western practice); accepts lay people taking Communion during the time of a Mass or Liturgy (that's skipping many, many generations to resurrect a practice which was "dead" in the West); accepts Gregorian chant (skips many generations); and accepts Gothic style vestments (skips many generations).

Father, it seems to me that you are coming at this from a very "Roman" view of "Western practice". A married priesthood only really skips about 300 years from the time of the Gregorian reforms to the time of the Protestant Reformation, the same for laity receiving Communion. Gregorian chant might have fallen into disuse in many places before it's 19th century revival, but it certainly never "died out" completely.

EDIT: fixed quotes

« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 12:02:31 AM by FormerReformer »

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

It's true that in many locales in Western Europe, the prohibition against married priests was only "on the books" (from the 3rd century or so, onward), and that these local canons were sometimes ignored.

Definitely if we accept the construct of The Patrimony, we could not permit married priests. That's skipping more than just a few generations, and the construct of The Patrimony says we can't even skip a single generation, much less several, without deviating from The Patrimony.

FormerReformer has perfectly laid out the modus operandi of the RWRV, and pretty succinctly at that.

My main plea is for tolerance and forbearance. I am not for forcing things on people. I believe one leads, whether in virtue or liturgically, primarily by example. Mine may be a minority view, but I think time will bear it out.

I hope you're right, Fr. Aidan, that it's not real and just a "bogeyman." But I've come across some things, down in the Western Rite trenches, so to speak, that definitely affirm these sentiments. I'd be grateful if it proved to not be so.

And, to be honest, I actually like what you wrote for the "Camp" scenario, and we agree on much of it, I just wanted to keep mine short and to the point

What I think Antioch's approach is, and what Fr. Winfrey is trying to articulate, is a mix of both, in that it's prudent and wise to begin with our inherited Patrimony, keeping as much in place as possible, and letting it organically grow from there, making corrections if it proves to be necessary. AND, I think part of that growth, should the occasion arise, would definitely come by looking backward. But to set the clock back 900 years from the start, or out of principle, under the assumption that that's what's really best for the Western Rite, or because it's thought that that's where the Rite would naturally arrive, is a bit presumptuous. You mentioned St. John Maximovitch's approval of the Gallican Rite for the Western Rite, but that was not out of principle, it was out of necessity and he thought it only a temporary measure until a more "authentic" rite could be put into place. That is, if we trust an Orthodox man by the name of Fr. Augustine, who says, in his own words: "My spiritual father tells me what Fr. Seraphim passed on to him from St. John. St. John said that he had blessed the Gallican Rite as a temporary measure, but that he felt it must eventually “phase out,” since it had been proscribed by an Orthodox council of the West prior to the Schism. He said a day would come when a more authentic rite could be employed, without the need for recreations or guess-work, but that the scholarship was not available yet. In the meantime, he saw value in allowing Westerners to become Orthodox without having to lose their Western heritage and identity, and so he blessed the Gallican Rite" (emphasis added, source: the comment section of http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/).

The point, it seems, to St. John was authenticity, not something that required recreations. I understand Fr. Winfrey's thoughts, and Antioch's approach, in this same light. Keep intact as much as possible from that which has already been in use and kept alive in the Western patrimony, correcting when necessary, but as minimally as possible so that the growth is organic and time-tested, not manufactured.

Now, to be fair, I do not think you're without your own "big, bad, scary bogeyman" either, with all of your "tremendous spiritual harm" talk wherein you lump the Anglo-Catholic tradition in with the whole of "Protestantism." Is it not saying something if the long tradition away from the initial "Protestant" reaction of the Anglican Church, which we see in the Caroline Divines, Non-Jurors, Elizabethans, Anglo-Catholics, etc., is what caused so many parishes to come into the AWRV? If the Anglo-Catholic Patrimony (for lack of a better term) were so "spiritually harmful" and "Protestant" why in the world did it ultimately lead so many to the bosom of Orthodoxy?

It's true that in many locales in Western Europe, the prohibition against married priests was only "on the books" (from the 3rd century or so, onward), and that these local canons were sometimes ignored.

Definitely if we accept the construct of The Patrimony, we could not permit married priests. That's skipping more than just a few generations, and the construct of The Patrimony says we can't even skip a single generation, much less several, without deviating from The Patrimony.

FormerReformer has perfectly laid out the modus operandi of the RWRV, and pretty succinctly at that.

My main plea is for tolerance and forbearance. I am not for forcing things on people. I believe one leads, whether in virtue or liturgically, primarily by example. Mine may be a minority view, but I think time will bear it out.

"The Patrimony" sounds like you're coming awfully close to constructing another bogeyman I don't think you're quite understanding where Fr. Winfrey is coming from with this idea. You keep insisting that it rules things out, but it doesn't. You can't point to anything "resurrected" and say, "Ha! What of The Patrimony now?!" That's not how it works.

At any rate, I think FormerReformer makes a good observation, and that is that there is room for both approaches within the Church. Much of the heated debate seems to stem from some idea that we're all trying desperately to get a single Rite within the Church, and we're waiting for some sort of Spirit-guided survival of the fittest weeding-out of all the "competing" liturgies out there in the Orthodox wild. I, for one, would love to see all of the approved liturgies remain in use, with several more old ones resurrected if people can use it authentically.

Why waste so much time in arguing over forms or worry over what others are doing? This is my main observation, sadly, of the modern Western Rite. It's bad enough people who know nothing of WR are arguing over what it should be, there are too many people in WR arguing over what it should be. What it will be will not come about through philosophical arguments, nor through episcopal decisions, really, but through the work of holy people and their prayers. I realize this is sort of a dumb argument in itself, but this is what I have observed.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

At any rate, I think FormerReformer makes a good observation, and that is that there is room for both approaches within the Church.

But if Antioch's approach to WRO is completely Orthodox doesn't it make resurrecting ancient pre-Schism rites a little useless? Why waste time trying to resurrect old rites when we can just borrow comtemporary Protestant and Catholic rites?

« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 10:16:25 AM by Alpo »

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

I would ask for patience from those who are outside the actual scope of living Western Rite Orthodoxy, looking in. It must seem awfully pointless to be discussing all these things ad nauseam with an apparent underlying premise of "my rite is better than yours." You must forgive us for the tedium of it, but the fact is, important developments are underway. It's time for free exchange of ideas. In most Western rite parishes, use of older forms is absolutely and categorically forbidden, and those who have opened their mouths in the past, to inquire about the possibility of using older Western rites, have been shamed and all but silenced. Only in the RWRV is there a non-partisan pastoral permission given to both older Western rites and modern Western rites. But that does not mean that the discussion is not occurring within the AWRV; it is occurring, even if not in any public forum other than the Occidentalis group (the only discussion group for Western Rite Orthodoxy in the world on which varying views are tolerated by the moderator as long as guidelines demanding civility are respected). People still whisper to one another at gatherings, or even speak aloud to one another in private settings. Hearts and minds can be won or lost, in all directions, no matter what official directives say.

The fact is, there is no way to avoid the discussion. The Western Rite clergy and their flocks have differing approaches to Western rite. We come from a bewildering variety of backgrounds. In many ways our approaches are compatible, and in some ways they are not compatible. We don't need or want a WWII de la WR. But we have to hash things out, with apologies in advance. At least things are calmer now than ten years ago, and even five years ago. As tumultuous as it all may seem, trust me, free exchange of ideas is a part of the natural processes by which the liturgics will become settled for the salvation of souls. And in the meantime, nothing can stop a faithful soul from drawing near to Christ, as long as one has the grace of the Mysteries, the purity of the Orthodox faith, and the desire, the hunger, for God.

The same dynamic of piety wedded to scholarship, which has resulted in the living use today of ancient Western rites in the canonical Orthodox Church (though this is utterly forbidden to the majority of WRO), has led in the past to the singing of Gregorian chant today in AWRV churches. It has led to the restoration of a married priesthood for the Western Rite. It has led to many positive things.

I honestly don't think I overstated what Fr. John Winfrey was describing in his construct of "The Patrimony"; if I did, somebody please show me where or how I did. I did come up with hypotheticals and brought the construct to bear on them; obviously, that's my thinking through the principles and is not Fr. John's own words.

Look, if the Patrimony construct is liberally applied, it will permit Sarum Use and Orthodox-era liturgics, since the Roman rite is the Roman rite is the Roman rite. If it is narrowly and strictly applied, then it would exclude Gregorian chant and a married priesthood, not to mention the entire BCP rite tradition of the Reformation. Or so it seems to this sinner. It is inconsistent to claim that almost any liturgical revolution is permissible as part of the flow of history, EXCEPT the flow of history where older Orthodox usages got restored.

We are in agreement, I believe. I admit, too, that I may very well be misunderstanding what Fr Winfrey is putting forth, too. I look forward to following his additional installments to see how he fleshes this out.

I think it's reached a point that Fr. John should be notified of all that has been posted in this thread, so that we are not talking behind his back. Can someone pass all this along to him? If I am misunderstanding his points, it should be his right to say something. And it wouldn't be the first time I did something stupid! Fortunately, in the monastery I learned how to apply forehead to ground and sincerely ask for pardon. Although I never quite learned how to shut my trap outside the great silence...

Only in the RWRV is there a non-partisan pastoral permission given to both older Western rites and modern Western rites.

The fact is, there is no way to avoid the discussion. The Western Rite clergy and their flocks have differing approaches to Western rite. We come from a bewildering variety of backgrounds. In many ways our approaches are compatible, and in some ways they are not compatible. We don't need or want a WWII de la WR. But we have to hash things out, with apologies in advance. At least things are calmer now than ten years ago, and even five years ago. As tumultuous as it all may seem, trust me, free exchange of ideas is a part of the natural processes by which the liturgics will become settled for the salvation of souls. And in the meantime, nothing can stop a faithful soul from drawing near to Christ, as long as one has the grace of the Mysteries, the purity of the Orthodox faith, and the desire, the hunger, for God.

The same dynamic of piety wedded to scholarship, which has resulted in the living use today of ancient Western rites in the canonical Orthodox Church (though this is utterly forbidden to the majority of WRO), has led in the past to the singing of Gregorian chant today in AWRV churches. It has led to the restoration of a married priesthood for the Western Rite. It has led to many positive things.

I cannot speak of the events of years ago in the WR. I assume Father the RWRV is ROCOR's new WR Vicariate? It seems to me that there has been enormous disunity within the RWRV in relation to liturgical use, in relation to the validity of non Sarum use including Baroque vestments, which Bishop Jerome the RWRV bishop ruled as entirely acceptable for WRO usage.

The RWRV may be a step forward, but clearly the disharmony amongst some ROCOR WR clergy which has spilled into the public domain needs to be addressed - not just as a matter of personality clashes, but as a matter of organisational structure/hierarchy/authority, particularly in relation to the WR being set up as US/Canada and Rest of the World.

Secondly the AWRV set up of having the AWRV firmly related to local bishops, local deaneries and organically part of the diocesan life of the Antiochian Church seems to me to have produced greater fruits of unity, greater oversight and clerical supervision and less disharmony than the contemporary RWR experience would suggest. Perhaps the WR would hinge less on strong charismatic leaders if WR clergy were subject to their local deaneries and bishops.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

I think it's reached a point that Fr. John should be notified of all that has been posted in this thread, so that we are not talking behind his back. Can someone pass all this along to him? If I am misunderstanding his points, it should be his right to say something. And it wouldn't be the first time I did something stupid! Fortunately, in the monastery I learned how to apply forehead to ground and sincerely ask for pardon. Although I never quite learned how to shut my trap outside the great silence...

Father, the link in the OP takes you to Fr Winfrey's article and comments may be made there. You could make a Comment to let him know his work is being discussed here on the Forum and on Occidentalis. His contributions would be welcome.

Dear father, I did so, and he responded, there, that he read through these posts (I gave a link to him) and clarified that he intends not a narrow interpretation of the Patrimony concept, but one that is "liberal" (in the original sense of the word).